Laukush Prasad Maurya vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 20025 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6030 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Laukush Prasad Maurya
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brijesh Kumar Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material on record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Lavkush Prasad Maurya to set aside the impugned order dated 24.8.2022, whereby the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad has rejected the bail application No. 3800 of 2022 of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 90 of 2022, under Section 376, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Industrial Area (Naini), District Prayagraj.

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 20.4.2022 was lodged by the victim against Vikas, parents of Vikas and one Surajman stating that co-accused Vikas made friendship with the victim. On 1.7.2021, the victim and co-accused Vikas solemnized marriage in a temple situated in Surat. One day co-accused Vikas went away from Surat without telling her. On 12.7.2021 Vikas attempted to solemnize second marriage with another girl. On 18.4.2022 other co-accused Surajman abused her and threatened with dire consequences.

After lodging the first information report, statement of the victim under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.4.2022. Statement of the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.6.2022. Medical examination of the victim was conducted on 22.6.2022. After recording the statements of the other prosecution witnesses, charge sheet had been submitted against the appellant on 13.9.2022, under Section 376, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and against the named co-accused persons on 13.9.2022, under Sections 494, 323, 504, 506, IPC. The appellant was arrested on 8.7.2022.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the appellant is not named in the first information report. There is no allegation with regard to offence of rape in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the victim was 27 years old at the time of the incident. First time the victim has stated in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. that the appellant being a Gram Pradhan assured to help in the present case, called her in Ishu Hospital and committed rape with her. It is further submitted that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., there is no mention of date and time with regard to offence committed by the appellant against the victim.

It is further submitted that medical examination of the victim was conducted on 22.6.2022 wherein no external injury was found on the body of the victim and before the Medical Officer no statement was recorded with regard to offence committed by the appellant.

It is further submitted that earlier Chanda Tiwari, uncle of Hira Mani Tiwari contested in Gram Pradhan election against the appellant in which the appellant has been elected as Pradhan and due to said enmity in collusion with the victim the appellant has been implicated in the present case. It is next contended that Hira Mani Tiwari lodged a first information report against the appellant as case crime No. 347 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 394, 386, IPC, P.S. Naini, District Prayagraj in which anticipatory bail has been granted by this Court. It is further submitted that the appellant has criminal history of one another case as case crime No. 75 of 2012 which is related to minor offence. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 8.7.2022.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the second respondent have supported the order passed by the Special Judge and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. Learned counsel for the second respondent fairly admits that in statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. there is no mention of date and time, but the appellant has committed rape with the victim on 18.5.2022 at 6.30 p.m. They further submit that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The victim was 27 years old at the time of incident;

(b) First information report was lodged against four named persons;

(c) The appellant was not named in the first information report;

(d) There is material contradiction/improvement between the allegation of FIR as well as statements of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. It would not be appropriate to discuss the same at this stage;

(e) The appellant is languishing in jail since 8.7.2022.

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 24.8.2022 is set aside.

Let appellant/applicant, Lavkush Prasad Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 6.12.2022/T. Sinha